Governance and Systemic Transformation

Owner	Bachelor Future Planet Studies
Coordinator	prof. dr. J. Grin
Part of	Exchange Programme Faculty of Science, specialisation BSc Future Planet Studies, year 1Bachelor Future Planet Studies, major Future Society, year 2

Course manual 2019/2020

Course content

Are we capable, with the current production system, to provide the future world population with sufficient food in a sustainable way, or is a system change needed to deal with this complex issue? And since our food production and consumption have important relations with energy and water issues, we could expand this question to include the energy and water system as well.
In this course, we explore how systems can be critically studied and, when they turn out to fulfill their function sub-optimally, how they can be transformed into an improved system. We will focus on the food system, but what is learned will have relevance for other systems too.

The course takes two perspectives on this issue: a governance perspective and a system innovation perspective. In doing so, it also provides an introduction to transition studies and governance literature, as well as to modernization theories. These issues will be synthesized into the method of reflexive design, which you may use in practice to collaboratively develop system innovation projects. This method, building on notions from and findings obtained in terms of the Multi-Level-Perspective (MLP) from transition studies, helps to design projects while anticipating and dealing with inertia and resistance.

Empirically, various cases will be discussed. In order to have a sound background understanding of current food systems, the modernization of food production in the Netherlands and the EU will be discussed. That discussion will also be used to explore basic notions from transition studies and governance theory. We will then further deepen our understanding of governance on the basis of three examples of transnational governance: the 1992 reforms in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and their implementation in three EU countries; the contemporary Milan Urban Food Policy Pact and how it hits the ground in Jakarta, Indonesia; and current Global Food Governance and how it hits the ground in South Africa.  

In the second part of the course, we will turn our attention to ‘doing’ governance for system innovation, empirically drawing on well-documented cases from EU countries. This will help us understand how to promote niche developments and connect them to ongoing changes in the incumbent regime. That understanding provides a further background for discussing reflexive design in the context of contemporary problems. We will explore and learn about the use of that method by applying it to contemporary challenges such as diversification of crop production in European countries and agro-ecology in the Global South; dealing with the food-water-energy nexus in Vietnam; and food waste in the global South.

Study materials

Literature

Objectives

• Students have a thorough understanding of governance and transition theories.
• Students have the competence to use this knowledge to critically engage in discussions on current food-related issued and reflect on existing solutions for these issues.
• Students have the competence to structure the issue and design feasible and acceptable solutions, integrating knowledge and expertise from different disciplines with the views and local knowledge of (non-academic) stakeholders to arrive at realistic solutions within global food systems.
• Students have additional knowledge, competences and skills to critically assess and build arguments regarding an issue at hand and to learn how to develop a personal, science-based view on this subject.

Teaching methods

In general, the first session in a particular week will be a lecture. While there will be room for interaction, the teacher will do most of the talking and the session will be structured by his powerpoint presentation. This presentation will be published on Canvas before the session. These lectures serve especially objectives #1 and #2 by introducing theories and critically discussing them.  They also occasionally contribute to objectives #3 and #4, through discussing examples

The second session in a week while the teachers will give feedback, students will do most of the talking, and the session will be structured by student inputs. The precise nature of these inputs will differ between weeks. The first four weeks it will be individual notes, submitted before the lecture. Some of these will be picked as a start for the discussion; other students will then be encouraged to relate these to their own ones. These sessions primarily serve objectives #1 (b y deepening understanding)  and increasingly also #2 (by relating theory to empirics). In the final three weeks, each week one third of the students will prepare, in a small group, a presentation as a start of the discussion.  These sessions contribute to objectives #3 and #4, thus preparing for the final assignment.

Learning activities

Attendance

Programme's requirements concerning attendance (OER-B):

• In case of practical sessions, the student is obliged to attend at least of 90% of the sessions and to prepare himself adequately, unless indicated otherwise in the course manual. In case the student attends less than 90%, the practical sessions should be redone entirely.
• In case of tutorials/seminars with assignments, the student is obliged to attend at least 90% of the tutorials/seminars and to prepare himself adequately, unless indicated otherwise in the course manual. In case the student attends less than 90%, the course cannot be finished

Additional requirements for this course:

Attendance of course sessions is compulsory. Reasoned absence must be announced before the session involved. You may miss no more than two sessions (lectures or tutorials). If you miss more than two sessions, and for really good reasons, you may still finish the course if you submitted an additional assignment, which will be tailored to the sessions you missed and which must be assessed as a ‘ pass.’ 

Assessment

Item and weight	Details
Final grade

Assessment comprises three elements:

• in weeks 1-4, students will write individual brief essay (about 800 words, excluding references) papers, in which students discuss theoretical concepts and insights and relate them to an empirical example to be discussed at the second course session of a particular week. Selected students will briefly present what they did as a start of the discussion during that session.
• In weeks 5-7, all students will once contribute to a small group, preparing a 15 minute presentation, which discusses an empirical example to be discussed at the second course session of a particular week on basis of literature. These presentations will serve as a start of the discussion during that session. They also prepare for the final paper.
• In week 8, all students produce a final paper (3000-4000 words) on one of the topics discussed in weeks 5-7.

Individual brief essays must be submitted no later than the Wednesday of that week, 15.00.  Presentation  must be ready during that week's tutorial. Deadline final paper: Wed, Oct 24, 17.00. Further specification in  table below.

 

Assessment form	Deadline	Weight (%)	Minimal grade (Yes/No)	Compensable (Yes/No)	Resit (Yes/No)
Brief essay (learning objective #1, #2)	Wednesday of week 1-4 of the course, 16.00. That is: September 4, 11, 18 and 25.	First graded essay counts for 15%, second for 25%	The average grade for the two graded essays must be a 6.	Yes, the two graded brief essays may compensate for each other. The other two must be a ‘pass’	Yes, but only if average grade is a fail. In that case, failed essays must be rewritten and handed in before final paper.
Presentation (learning objectives #3)	The session where you will present according to the roster that will be published at Canvas.	20 %	No	Yes, with essay grade and/or final paper grade.	No
Final paper (learning objectives #3, #4)	Wednesday, October 23, 17.00	40%	Must be a 6	No	Yes, if a fail for the final paper. New version may be submitted within two weeks after receiving grade

Assessment diagram

Se above

Students that were enrolled in the course in previous years

NA

Inspection of assessed work

All results and feedback will be communicated through Canvas.

Assignments

A) Individual essays

week 1: Write a brief essay (about 800 words) on how the post-war agricultural regime came under pressure in the mid-1970s. Pay attention to (changes in) the dominant problem definition, and what Sørensen & Christiansen call ‘basic principles’ and ‘basic institutions.’ Interpret (some of) the shifts you observe by relating them to Schot & Geels.

week 2: Write a brief essay (about 800 words) on the change in agricultural policy arrangements over time. In doing so, relate one of the policy arrangements from section 8.3.1 and one from section 8.3.2 two relevant chapters from Bevir, and use that to characterise your chosen arrangements more elaborately than Wisserhof does in his tables (you may make tables with additional rows). Interpret the emergence of a new policy arrangement in terms of Bevir (p. 3-30).

week 3: Write an essay (about 800 words), interpreting, one key difference (or a few, related differences) between Bristol and the city of your choice regarding the unfolding and outcomes of the urban food governance strategy. Make active use of at least four other articles discussed this week, including at least two articles from Bevir and one of the other articles.

week 4:  Write a brief essay, with a well-reasoned comment on one of Vos’ (2015) proposals (or a few, strongly related, proposals) for changes in the global governance of food security and nutrition. What flaws do you anticipate that might occur if this proposal is followed up; and how could the proposal be amended / better elaborated and/or what would be a more promising proposal? Throughout your argument, make active use of at least four articles that were discussed this and the previous week (including at least two from this week and at least one form last week).

Two essays will be graded, within a week, (one from the first two weeks, one from weeks 3 and 4), the others will be given a 'fail' or a ' pass'  Essays a count for 40% of the final grade, the first counts for 15%, the second for 25% so that students may ‘ learn the job’.  On the first graded essay, written individual feedback will be given (through Canvas).  Plenary discussions, which will heavily rely on the essays, will yield important further feedback, underlining and elaborating salient observations and discussing misunderstandings and difficulties. If the average of all assignments is lower than a 5.5, a resit must be done before submitting the final paper. Otherwise, no resit is possible.

Assessment criteria for brief essays:

• Correct language (spelling / grammar / sentence construction
• The literature as specified in the assignment for that week should be used.
• Concepts and insights are formulated and used sharply and accurately, referring with accuracy to the publication used.
• Meets the assignment’s specified objective by making one or several salient points, based on analytically sharp argumentation

 

Group presentations

Week 5: Those who have chosen to write their final paper on food waste will as a group prepare a presentation, identifying some barriers to system innovations around that problem. Make active use of at least two articles discussed this week, as well as two articles from previous weeks. A folder with analyses of food waste policies is available at Canvas.

Week 6: Those who have chosen to write their final paper on reducing meat consumption will as a group prepare a presentation, discussing what regime changes may help to overcome barriers in niche practices. Make active use of at least two articles discussed this week, as well as two articles from previous weeks. A folder with analysis of reducing meat consumption is available at Canvas.

Week 7:  Those who have chosen to write their final paper on crop diversification will as a group prepare a presentation, identifying some barriers to system innovations around that problem. Make active use of at least two articles discussed this week, as well as two articles from previous weeks. A folder with analyses of crop diversification is available at Canvas.

Presentations must be ready during that week's tutorial and  will be assessed within a week; in addition to feedback during the session, some feedback will be provided (along with the grade) to the students who prepared it. The presentation counts for 20% of the overall grade. No resit is possible; a fail may be compensated through grades on the brief assignments and final grades.

Assessment criteria for presentations:

• Concepts and insights from literature must presented and used with analytical accuracy
• Properly relate concepts and insights from literature empirical data
• Professional powerpoint: correct language, clear structure, good use of visuals.
• Must enable an analytically sound group discussion by making at least one salient thesis and one good question on the issue specified for the presentation.

 

Final paper

You will write a final paper on one of the topics discussed in weeks 5-7, approaching it from both transition theory and governance theory to develop a view on the issue and an outline for a conceivable solution. They may draw upon the presentations, but only if they refer to them as an academic source, in accordance to normal academic ethics.

Assessment criteria for final paper:

• Correct language (spelling / grammar / sentence construction
• Active and accurate use of theoretical concepts or insights from at least 6 chapters from Bevir as well as 4 articles discussed in weeks 5-7.
• Empirical analysis must be grounded in at least one academic article on the topic not discussed in this course (from e.g. sustainability studies, development studies, rural studies etc.) or on the topic, and contain some self-gathered data: one interview or three secondary sources (databases, policy documents, mass media, websites,
• Integrates concepts and insights from transition studies and governance literature with each other and with empirical knowledge
• Makes one or several salient points on the issue and proposes an outline for a conceivable solution, demonstrating comprising an, analytically informed and critical, view on the topic.

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Additional information

Full biographic data on literature

Literature/materials

 

• Beers, P.J. & Barbara van Mierlo (2017).  Reflexivity and Learning in System Innovation Processes. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 57, Number 3, p.  415 – 436.
• Bevir, Mark (2009). Key concepts in governance. London etc.: SAGE.
• Bos, Bram (A.P.) & John Grin, (2012). Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track governance, Ch. 7 (p. 132-153) in: Barbier M. and Elzen B. (eds), System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices towards Sustainable Agriculture. Paris: INRA
• de Haan, J. (Hans), Jan Rotmans (2011). ‘ Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of change’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78, p. 90–102
• de Haan, J. (Hans), Jan Rotmans (2018). A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 128, p. 275–286
• De Schutter, Olivier (2017). The political economy of food systems Reform’, European Review of Agricultural Economics Vol 44 (3), p. 705–731.
• Deakin, Mark, Davide Diamantini and Nunzia Borrelli (eds., 2016) The Governance of City Food Systems: Case Studies From Around the World. Milano: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.
• Elzen, B., & Bos, B. (2016). The RIO approach: Design and anchoring of sustainable animal husbandry systems. Technological forecasting and social change, 145, 141-152.
• Elzen, Boelie, Marc Barbier, Marianne Cerf and John Grin (2012). 'Stimulating transitions towards sustainable farming systems', Chapter 19 (p. 431-455) in: Ika Darnhofer, David Gibbon and Benoit Dedieu (Eds.) (2012). Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Berlin etc.: Springer. [online access through UvA digital library
• FAO. Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome (available from internet)
• Grin, John (2008). ‘The Multi-Level Perspective and the design of system innovations’, chapter 3 ( 47-80)  in: J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and macro-regional practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. [in Canvas Folder]
• Grin, John, 2010: “Understanding Transitions from a Governance Perspective”, Part III,) in: Grin, John; Rotmans, Jan; Schot, Johan, 2010: Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long Term Structural Change (New York: Routledge): 223–314. [the chapter used will be found in the Canvas Folder]
• Grin, John & Esther Marijnen (2011). ‘Global Threats, Global Changes and Connected Communities in the Agrofood system‘. Chapter 61 (p. 1005-1018) in: Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring ,Czeslaw Mes­jasz, John Grin, Patricia Kameri-Mbote, Béchir Chourou, Pal Dunay, Jörn Birkmann (Eds., 2011): Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security – Threats, Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Risks. Berlin – Heidelberg – New York : Springer-Verlag. [online access through UvA digital library]
• Grin, John, Johan Schot, Jan Rotmans (2011), ‘On patterns and agency in transition dynamics: Some key insights from the KSI programme.’ Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1, no 1, p. 76-81.
• Grin, John (2012), ‘Between governments, kitchens, firms and farms: the governance of transitions between societal practices and supply systems.’ Chapter 2 (p. 35-56) in: Spaargaren, Gert, Anne Loeber, and Peter Oosterveer (eds.) (2012). Food Practices in Transition. Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. Part III of the series on Transitions towards a Sustainable Development. [see Canvas Folder]
• Grin, John (2016), ‘Transition Studies: Basic Ideas and Analytical Approaches’, chapter 4 (p. 105-122) in: Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, John Grin, Jürgen Scheffran (Eds.): Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace Handbook. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace 10 (Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London: Springer-Verlag, 2016). [online access through UvA digital library]
• Hoffman, Jesse & Anne Loeber (2016): Exploring the Micropolitics in Transitions from a Practice Perspective: The Case of Greenhouse Innovation in the Netherlands, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 18, no 5, p. 692-711
• Ingram, Julie (2015). Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: An analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 40 (2015) 59-75.
• Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417
• Schot, Johan W.; Geels, Frank W., 2010: “The dynamics of transitions: a sociohisotrical perspective”, in: Grin, John; Rotmans, Jan; Schot, Johan (with contributions by Geels, Frank; Loorbach, Derk), Part I; Transitions to Sustainable Development. New Directions in the Study of Long Term Structural Change (New York: Routledge), p. 11-101. [the chapter used will be found in the Canvas Folder]
• Smith, Adrian, 2007: “Translating sustainabilities between green niches and sociotechnical regimes”, in: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19,4: 427–450.
• Smith, Adrian, Jan-Peter Voß and John Grin (2010), ‘Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of adopting a broad perspective, and its challenges’, Research Policy, 39, p. 435-448
• Smith, Adrian; Raven, Rob, 2012: “What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability”, in: Research Policy, 41,6: 1025–1036
• Sørensen, Mads P. & Alan Christiansen (2013). Ulrich Beck: An Introduction to the Theory of Second Modernity and the Risk Society New York: Routledge. Chapter 3 (p. 26-30): The Theory of Second Modernity: Ulrich Beck’s Diagnosis of Contemporary Modernity. [online access through UvA digital library]
• Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., Scott Drimie, John Ingram, Laura Pereira, Mark J. Whittingham (2018). A diagnostic framework for food system governance arrangements: The case of South Africa. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 84, p. 85–93.
• Vos, Rob (2015). Thought for Food: Strengthening Global Governance of Food Security. New York: UNITED NATIONS - Department of Economic and Social Affairs. CDP Background Paper No. 29. [may be downloaded from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/papers/ ]

 

Last year's course evaluation

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student evaluations to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Course Name (#EC)	N
Strengths	Notes for improvement
Response lecturer:

Contact information

Coordinator

• prof. dr. J. Grin